Social Treason

“We can no longer tolerate the injustice of a system that shuts out nearly one in six Americans,” said Hillary Clinton recently in a speech at Broadlawns Medical Center in Des Moines, Iowa. What is incredible about this statement is the degree to which many Americans agree, yet have no clue as to what it implies. One must ask who are the “we” she is speaking about. Secondly, “injustice?” Injustice to whom and premised upon what moral code does she presume to preach? Lastly, this “one in six” number should be investigated for accuracy and meaning.

Clearly, the “we” she refers to are all the redistributionist, socialist-minded, new Fabians to whom she was speaking. It certainly is not an appeal to hard working, health conscious, responsible and rational Americans who understand that they are not born as an indentured servant to the “greater good,” or some such self-sacrificial platitude. The fact is your health care is not, nor can it be, my financial obligation. As a moral precept, I do not owe you anything except what I owe to myself and to all other men – an obligation to act rationally.

Hillary Clinton, or anyone who argues that government has a role in “health care,” is operating from a moral premise which assumes self-sacrifice as a virtue. That all of us are, indeed, born as indentured servants to the greater good of society. Nothing could be further from the intentions and vision of the founding of America. The basic premise upon which this country was founded was not Christian alms for the poor, or a code of self-sacrifice. What the truly unique American idea was, was that the individual is not subordinated to the group, the state, or society. Yet, this is precisely what is implied by either state run or federally mandated health care.

This pernicious idea of self-sacrifice as a virtue has caused more damage to more people than any other single concept. Its evil lies in the fact that when need is the standard, every man is both a victim and a parasite. The state requires him to pay taxes and labor to satisfy the perceived needs of others, leaving himself and his own family in the disgraceful position of a parasitic animal who is required to let some of his needs be filled by others. Under such a code of morality, the first value one is forced to sacrifice is morality itself, and next is ones own self-esteem.

The justification of Mrs. Clinton’s implication of mass sacrifice is far more corrupt than the injustice it claims to rectify. Her logic presumes that since I am not paying for your health care, that this entails an injustice. That my life and my mind are not really my own, that you actually own a part of me. Ergo, you have an apriori claim on my productivity and therefore if I do not participate in paying for your health care this constitutes an “injustice.” Such convoluted logic is what got Mrs. Clinton into trouble with Hillary Care, Part I (circa 1993). There is no fundamental difference now, and conscious, rational, thinking Americans should reject both her and her socialized medical care.

Lastly, proponents of more government intervention into the health care marketplace argue that because there is some statistical number, in this case “one in six”, of Americans supposedly “shut out” of the health care system that more government is the solution. The facts of the matter are that this number is bogus on its face, moreover who is she to dictate to those who have voluntarily chosen to opt out and not participate that they now must. That you have those who say they cannot afford coverage, yet find a way to purchase a home, cars, snowmobiles, nights out, cigarettes, and on and on and on.

America has the wealthiest poor people on the planet who have more “things” than you can shake a stick at. The truly destitute in this country, who have fallen on hard times due to circumstances beyond their control, are rare. Yet, I would be forced to pay into a nationalized health care system under the premise that it is because there are some Americans who do not have health insurance (reason not a factor). Why then should I bother to buy my own? If the government is going to take care of me if I do not procure my own insurance, why should I continue to be moral (to produce and engage in trade) when my morality is being financially penalized? Good question, and Hillary has no answer because “power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind” and she has a for sale to highest bidder sign stamped on her forehead. What Hillary is actually saying is that it is social treason to not socialize health care in America.

Please, think about that.

Posted in Outrage and Rant, US Presidential Election. Comments Off on Social Treason
%d bloggers like this: